As I reported in October, court testimony from Jonathan Rosenorn-Lanng of the UK Border Agency (Special Cases Directorate) stated that all UKBA evidence in the case came from the CST or the Board of Deputies (this distinction is largely moot since their CST point of contact Mike Whine has a role at both organizations) – apart from a communities impact statement from the Department For Communities and Local Government.

In the reports, the CST makes many serious allegations – mainly against Raed Salah and (especially in the second document) against Neturei Karta, strongly refuted by those concerned. Therefore, both documents should be taken with more than a grain of salt. I suspect it highly likely these documents were compiled with the aid of Israeli intelligence services.

Rationale

I have decided to publish the full documents I refer to in my report to give readers access to the proof for themselves. I do so reluctantly, because the documents contain a large amount of disinformation and smears, and their publication risks continued dissemination of many myths.

It is of concern that apparently the Secretary of State [Theresa May] did not consult with any Muslim or Palestinian organisations, and we note the evidence of both Professor Miller and Mr Lambert that whereas the CST has done invaluable work in identifying threats to the Jewish community in the UK from the far right such as the British National Party (BNP), it failed to distinguish between anti-Semitism and criticism of the actions of the Israeli State and therefore gives an unbalanced perspective…

On balance, I’ve decided to publish. The documents contain much that is recycled from the internet anyway, and EI readers are unlikely to be credulous enough to take their claims too seriously. On the other hand, how the CST conducts itself when out of the public spotlight should be taken very seriously. And these documents do throw light on that.

Document 1: “Some anti-Zionist Jewish individuals and groups…”

This 12-page document is part of a longer dossier (hence the doubling-up on page numbers) which concluded with the report on Neturei Karta below. Rather than pointing out all the lies it contains, it would take far less time to pick out the few truths in it. The section most relevant to my report on the CST is page 11:

It is also interesting that the CST seems to take seriously the analysis of Raphael Israeli, a racist Israeli academic from Hebrew University. Israeli’s “expertise” on Salah should be considered in light of his bigoted views on Muslims: “When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems. That is a general rule, so if it applies everywhere it applies in Australia” (The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 February 2007).

Document 2: Neturei Karta and Raed Salah

I sent Rabbi Yacov Weisz of Neturei Karta UK a copy of the report below and he gave a detailed response denying its claims, labelling it “pure lies”. Unfortunately, I did not have space to include this in full in my report. So it would be remiss of me to publish the document below without at least outlining his response as a right to reply:

The CST’s attempt to paint them as an outcast minority was deeply misleading. While it’s true Neturei Karta activists are a minority in the Haredi community, they draw on a much wider base of anti-Zionist support from those who don’t necessarily have the time or commitment for demonstrations and activism. Neturei Karta “would not be able to exist in the community if we were shunned”.

The accusation of Holocaust denial was untrue.

The accusation Neturei Karta “defended” an attack on Jews in Mumbai was untrue. The Israeli press had distorted a comment by Neturei Karta that the Chabad movement should be anti-Zionist.

Further reading

The Charity Commission’s website provides accounts on each charity registered in the UK for the last few years. The CST page is here and the Gerald Ronson Foundation page is here. Aside from the government links with the CST I have previously uncovered, aspects of the group’s relations to the state are no secret, and have included at least one report jointly produced and funded by the Home Office.

Although Gerald Ronson likes to point to a 1996 European Court ruling that his conviction was “unsafe”, he neglects to mention that his appeal was ultimately thrown out by the Court of Appeal in 2001. Geoffrey Alderman’s second controversial (within Zionist circles) column about the CST was “Continually Spreading Trust” in June. The page on the CFCA website that lists the CST as a member of this Israeli government organ is here.

The best treatment on the history and context of the “Gable Memo” that I have read is “Our Searchlight problem” in Lobster magazine issue 24 from 1992 (as referenced in the main article). For those without access to New Statesman or Lobster backissues, Notes From the Borderland has also published the full memo on their website. “Searchlight and the State” from a 1983 issue of Anarchy magazine provides further interesting context (and was helpfully republished online by the Kate Sharpley Library).

No Retreat, Dave Hann and Steve Tilzey’s insider account of Anti-Fascist Action’s street-level war against neo-Nazis, talks about ever-increasing allegations from within AFA in the early 1990s that Searchlight was “working hand in glove with both the police and intelligence services” (page 242). Hann notes (page 243) that this eventually led AFA to sever ties with Searchlight at the national level, “although local co-operation still existed in some parts of the country”. This is significant because Hann’s co-author Steve Tilzey actually worked on “intelligence” for Searchlight (pages 102-103, 154-155). Hann recalls: “I had personally lost all trust in Searchlight as an organisation, although I respected the bravery and commitment of certain individuals within it. My dilemma was that Steve [Tilzey] was a mate” (page 243).

For a clue as to why the CST declined to respond to the evidence it received Mossad training and denounces anti-Zionist Jews in secret, see my last discussion with their spokesman Mark Gardner in this article and my various other articles on the CST.

Acknowledgements

Alongside all my sources named in the main article, I would like to thank the following people who helped inform my special report into the CST: Professor David Miller of Strathclyde University and SpinWatch. In his role of expert testimony for the appealant in the Raed Salah case, Professor Miller was author of a report on the CST, which he was kind enought to provide me a copy of (as mentioned in a previous article). This report provided some useful history on the CST and tipped me off about Support Trustee ltd. SpinWatch runs the excellent PowerBase site, which I have often found a useful resource. Professor Miller was also co-author of the seminal recent report “The Cold War on British Muslims” which provides some useful historical context.

Many thanks to Jonathan Bloch, who got in contact after reading some of my earlier work on the CST and was generous with his time suggesting different potential research avenues — crucially including the suggestion I contact Antony Lerman.